It's not the worst of it, but what I may be actually angriest about (right now) is Roberts' smarmy smugness and dismissiveness in the final two paragraphs of section IV and the whole of section V. "Fear mongering," "extreme hypotheticals," "our perspective must be more farsighted," and this.
🧵of excerpts from & links to my articles on the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the evil of executive lawlessness that they're meant to restrain.
bsky.app/profile/jaco...
It turns out that I should have kept the word "crisis," but other than that, I think this lecture from the day after the 2020 election holds up well.
www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/u...
He accuses the dissent of "extreme hypotheticals," then, instead of recognizing Trump as uniquely corrupt and criminal, speculates that the charges against him portend a future in which presidents "cannibalize" one another with criminal charges -- despite two centuries of that not happening.
Yes, the consistent background assumption of the conservatives is that the cases against Trump are retaliation for ordinary presidential behavior and not an attempt to hold the former president accountable for aberrant and illegal behavior.
"Whether it's Democrats opening a legitimate prosecution of a corrupt criminal ex-president who promised to jail his political opponents, or Republicans opening their promised illegitimate prosecutions of their enemies, you must admit both sides could vex each other with prosecutions."
Not to pile on/ you all have said it all, but just imagine (ok don’t really) if Jan 6ers we’re convinced they’d be pardoned for doing those things, knowing there was full immunity involved.
Also, he literally just created a precedent for presidents to murder their enemies if they want to. I'm sure future presidents will prefer the risk of being tried in court to the risk of their successor sending a death squad after them.
I mean, a President finger plugging his ears and shouting "no-no-no-no-no!" to election results was also more or less an extreme hypothetical; but we get this weak bad faith "the center can not hold" judo, implying the gov't is on a dangerous path, and not a former President did a dangerous thing.
all presidents so far have only done gentle, kind things, and definitely not bugged the offices of their opponents, or chanted "lock her up" at rallies, or stolen nuclear secrets, or done a coup, or trafficked drugs to contras, or sabotaged ceasefires and hostage negotiations, or tortured anyone
The use of the mocking "infallibility" is particularly galling. The Framers were fixated on human fallibility as a problem for democratic forms of government. That is why they would have never authorized presidential immunity. It is Roberts who foolishly assumes "infallibility" by a President.
What gets me is that the “extreme hypothetical” is WHAT BROUGHT THIS CASE TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
I mean, a President ginning up a mob to threaten Congress to *not* certify an election…is a REAL THING THAT HAPPENED!!!
All those other “hypotheticals” Sotomayer discussed? Trump is SAYING THEM!
I was happy on the whole with Biden's remarks last night, but I found myself wishing he had mentioned this precisely this as well, as part of his affirming Sotomayor's dissent.
It depends on which political enemies Trump assassinates. I suspect some examples may make him Roberts in satisfaction.
"Yes, see, that's why a Republican president needed to know that they wouldn't be legally bothered about such things."
This is the same guy who wrote that courts are better at understanding how to implement the law than the executive branches that are in charge of implementing the law, right?
The entire logic of "giving this office the legal power to do something doesn't mean someone will do it" is one of the most absurd opinions I've ever heard.
i believe the smugness is coming from "you can't and won't do anything as we grab more power. we know you see us as an authority." the institutionalists can demand an institutional response: there are multiple justices that can be investigated on solid grounds for corruption
Unfortunately, their smugness is probably correct, because of the Senate likely being lost by Democrats in the 2024 election.
Let's prevent that outcome.
No matter how impeccable you think your logic is, if you reach the conclusion “it’s okay to commit treason as long as you’re doing your job”, you need to go back and do it again, because you got something wrong.
Yes!! The smug tone is absolutely maddening. And I gather that he thought that by starting Part IV by rejecting Trump's most insane argument (about the impeachment clause) he could sell the opinion as moderate (a little something for everyone).
The irony meter detonated like a nuclear weapon when he accused his dissenting colleagues of "impressive infallibility". Hard to imagine such limited self-awareness.
Once again I suggest Jeffrey Rosen revisit his July 2020 hagiography, praising the collegial Roberts court for finding common ground in narrow decisions and respecting precedents.
